I hope that readers are compelled to comment on the report via this forum although, unfortunately, Mr Goldschmied will not be able to respond in person to any questions that may arise. He has been inundated with requests for the report to be published since it, and he personally, played such an important part in the inquiry process.

Personally I have been greatly amused by some of the blatant, continuing hypocricies churned out by the SES - indicating the glaring pomposities of a group of self-important sychophants to the views of a madman.

Lest we forget - there is a very serious issue immediately upon us. The future of St James schools is about to be decided by the same people who continue to follow the rigid dogma of the SES and by associaion the 'chief executive governor' of St James.

I was a governor of St James in the late 80's and 90's. As someone working in the property business my role was principally to advise on premises strategy and development opportunities. I had no expertise in the field of education. I was also on the executive board of the SES for some time and was father of four boys and one daughter (taken away from St James in 1993) who attended the schools with, as you might expect, mixed results. Towards the end of my involvement as a governor I was asked to give my personal view of St James boys school in terms of its public perception in the light of the imminent move of the senior boys school from the relative anonymity of Victoria to the high visibility of an affluent London suburb.

When I came in contact with the St James Inquiry team I felt it incumbent to ask whether this report had been provided as part of the briefing. I suggested that, if it was thought relevant, the Inquiry team should ask their clients, the St James Governors, for a copy. Some two months later this was eventually made available to the Inquiry. It apparently had not been volunteered which is hardly surprising as Mr Lambie, 'senior tutor' of the SES tried to suppress it at the time of its publication on the grounds that it was critical of aspects of the organisation of the schools and particularly the covert connection with the SES.

This also probably accounts for why the report was not well received by the governors and head teachers (with the exception of Mr Moss) and brushed under the carpet at the time after a desultory, un-minuted, 3 hour discussion.

Following the Inquiry Team's receipt of the report I attended an interview with Mr Townend at which a lengthy discussion took place. This covered a wide range of topics including the nurturing of the childs' individual psyche as expounded by Alfred Adler in his seminal work, 'Understanding human nature', to the inadequacy of the 'educational principles' - only given, I believe, by MacLaren as very general guidelines 30 years ago - as a long term intellectual underpinning of any kind of educational method, to the original founding impulses of the SES philosophic system that unavoidably cause it to behave opaquely in relation to society as a whole. I assumed, perhaps naively, that, my report having been made available in the spirit of openness that the commissioning of the Inquiry was claimed to be promoting, the document itself would be annexed to the published report. However, this turned out not to be the case. It was referred to but its contents withheld.

I have since been asked by many people to make its contents known. Ten years on it does not seem to me to have anything in it that has not already been extensively aired in the WATD forum in one form or another. Many of the less radical recommendations, such as skirt length and reduced obsession with Sanskrit and even 'non-SES' teachers, have in fact been quietly adopted as part of an effort to make the schools seem more 'normal' but the covert connection with, and recruitment to, the SES and the non-accountable shadow governorship of St James by the 'leader/senior tutor' of the SES remain and appear to have been completely untouched by the Inquiry.

At the interview I was asked a key question by Mr Townend: did I think St James could ever operate as an organisation independent from the SES? I asked for time to consider that question and replied some weeks later. An extract of that reply is relevant to the openness of the inquiry and I have made this available here together with the original 1996 report itself.

I have removed names in a few places for obvious reasons but, to the best of my knowledge, none of these refer to teachers who are part of any investigation. I do not propose to enter into any dialogue on the contents of the report but others will of course be free to comment as they see fit. If it contributes to the new spirit of openness that is being claimed by the governing body well and good.

I have reflected at some length on your challenging question as to whether St James could successfully separate itself form the school of Economic Science (SES) and operate as a genuine standalone organisation.

For a variety of reasons I do not believe it could.....

........Many of the features listed in Appendix 4 of my report are still very much in evidence in the SES today. By extension, given the close links between the two organisations, they must also operate in St James.

The central SES tenet, which I referred to in my interview, that the belief in the individual personality or ego is the hallmark of those who are 'asleep' is fundamental. The presumption underlying this, namely that the tuth lies in suppressing and eventually attaining liberation by abandoning the ego, fuels that explosive mixture.

In October 1989 MacLaren [then SES leader], in one of his last visits, had this to report in his introduction to the regular biennial week of conversations with the Shankarcharya:

"Since the last audience, the senior members of the School[SES] have generally brightened and become more efficient. The individuals seem to be unaware of it themselves, though they can see it in others. An effect of this brightening was a general awakening to the need for Ahankara [individual characteristics overlaying the pure 'self'] to go. Last May there was a general demand among the senior groups to take a resolution." The men were given the words as follows, 'Ahankara must go. The back must be turned on Ahankara and all its works and the mind must face the truth, looking back to see shortcomings and transcending them'.The ladies were given the following words, 'Ahankara must go. There shall be total surrender to the husband, the School and through the School, to the Absolute, by full service through body, mind and heart without reservation.'

These resolutions seem to have had an immediate effect of lightening the load of Ahankara, but they also threw up particular features. Men and women both discovered that there were voices which spoke in the mind and which governed much of hteir lives, which were opposed ot the Shruti[Vedic scriptures] and the words of the Mahapurusha[Great being]. They had identified with these voices, thinking them to be their own. But they awoke to the fact that they were alien. This realisation is just dawning. Sometimes it was as though there were a creature in their subtle world[mind] which rose up to take full charge of their being. They had always identified with this creature, but have begun to see that it is not their self at all."

MacLaren went on to report:"The ladies dicovered, without exception, that they never surrendered fully, but always reserved something, as they put it, for themselves[my underlining]. The men discovered that following the teaching was strongly opposed by the idea that one could not be conscious and one's self and earn a living at the same time. Therefore one must not go too far down this road of liberation."As a report on the purportedly homogenous ad unanimous gender based responses of two separate sets of several hundred people to the proclamation of a form of words invented by MacLaren this is patently and absurd generalistaion and quite impossible for MacLaren to have ever substantiated.

With hindsight the long skirts edict issued on the spur of the moment in South Africa in the summer of 1974 was a classic device, putting all women in SES worldwide into a position of deliberate embarrassment and separation from the 'outside' activities in their communities.

The equivalent situation for the men would have been if all and sundry including the St James male teachers had been ordered to wear morning coats ad top hats at all times.

But of course MacLaren would never have done that. The subtle bias and discrimination in the wording difference between men and women is typical of the barely concealed psychological abuse. No doubt much of the lady teachers' petty vindictiveness at St James came fro mthat treatment either at the hands of their SES tutors or husbands or both.

All the above by way of background. At the root of the difficulty St James perpetually runs into are the vague 'educational principles' laid down by MacLaren and which I set out in Section 2 of my 1996 report. You may recall that in that report I had asked the 3 head teachers to articulate their educational philosophy so as to get them really thinking about what was important from their practical experience as teachers. They were personally, without consultation with any governors, secretly forbidden by Lambie from undertaking such an exercise.

With no educational knowlege whatsoever and official locus to do so Lambie [MacLarens successor as SES leader] nevertheless felt in a position to assert that MacLaren's definition 20 years earlier was complete an sufficient. It plainly was not but the move ensured St James's permanent intellectual and spiritual dependence on the SES in the same way as Lambie's annual 'world tour' (of the UK's former colonies) seeks to maintain dependence on the London SES. The decision by Lambie to persuade Pincham to 'invite' selected colonial day-schools to affiliate with London's St James is in the same vein.

In all cases Lambie is careful to ensure these associations, whilst appearing to be official links, carry no legal ties so that liability for any local problem can be isolated whilst constant covert exertion of control and influence thrives behind the scenes.

The othe device is the use of apparently unconnected charities such as the Education Renaissance Trust controlled by the SES. This has been going for several years. Another one is the Jyoti Nidhidyasa Trust which is supposed to look after fundraising for the Shankaracharya's ashram. A more recent one is the Lucca Leadership Trust for young people, funded by teh head of th Sheffield SES and run entirely by attendees of the SES and scions of the senior SES families. This use of disparate bodies may multiply in future as a device for giving the appearance of independent but like-minded people.

Of course all of this is done with the best possible intentions and in the unspoken inner conviction that, because this is the only true teaching, almost any stratagem is justified for getting the message across to St James pupils and for ensuring permanent dependence on the London SES.

The secret connection and influence is an integral part of the concatenation between the two organisations. The engineered peer pressure exerted to join the Foundation Groups appears to be a strong as ever and requires taking a form of oath of allegiance based on the 'threefold bond' described in Section 2 of my report under b) 1, 2 and 3. Because it is not part of the curriculum it is not an area that comes within the schools inspectorate's remit.

I do not believe the leopard can change its spots or has any intention of doing so. It would be against all the SES beliefs and traditions of close covert control. Any recommendation you made in terms of 'Chinese walls', appointment of 'non-SES' governors or other mechanisms to ensure the St James really is Independent of SES are unlikely to be followed other than in outer form. Lambie, the Governors and teachers and administrators are too closely and intimately involved emotionally and financially with the SES for that independence to teh genuinely fostered. Tunnels under and spy-holes through the Chinese wall would be formed in a matter of days.

I have reflected at some length on your challenging question as to whether St James could successfully separate itself form the school of Economic Science (SES) and operate as a genuine standalone organisation.

For a variety of reasons I do not believe it could.....

........Many of the features listed in Appendix 4 of my report are still very much in evidence in the SES today. By extension, given the close links between the two organisations, they must also operate in St James.

The central SES tenet, which I referred to in my interview, that the belief in the individual personality or ego is the hallmark of those who are 'asleep' is fundamental. The presumption underlying this, namely that the tuth lies in suppressing and eventually attaining liberation by abandoning the ego, fuels that explosive mixture.

In October 1989 MacLaren [then SES leader], in one of his last visits, had this to report in his introduction to the regular biennial week of conversations with the Shankarcharya:

"Since the last audience, the senior members of the School[SES] have generally brightened and become more efficient. The individuals seem to be unaware of it themselves, though they can see it in others. An effect of this brightening was a general awakening to the need for Ahankara [individual characteristics overlaying the pure 'self'] to go. Last May there was a general demand among the senior groups to take a resolution." The men were given the words as follows, 'Ahankara must go. The back must be turned on Ahankara and all its works and the mind must face the truth, looking back to see shortcomings and transcending them'.The ladies were given the following words, 'Ahankara must go. There shall be total surrender to the husband, the School and through the School, to the Absolute, by full service through body, mind and heart without reservation.'

These resolutions seem to have had an immediate effect of lightening the load of Ahankara, but they also threw up particular features. Men and women both discovered that there were voices which spoke in the mind and which governed much of hteir lives, which were opposed ot the Shruti[Vedic scriptures] and the words of the Mahapurusha[Great being]. They had identified with these voices, thinking them to be their own. But they awoke to the fact that they were alien. This realisation is just dawning. Sometimes it was as though there were a creature in their subtle world[mind] which rose up to take full charge of their being. They had always identified with this creature, but have begun to see that it is not their self at all."

MacLaren went on to report:"The ladies dicovered, without exception, that they never surrendered fully, but always reserved something, as they put it, for themselves[my underlining]. The men discovered that following the teaching was strongly opposed by the idea that one could not be conscious and one's self and earn a living at the same time. Therefore one must not go too far down this road of liberation."As a report on the purportedly homogenous and unanimous gender based responses of two separate sets of several hundred people to the proclamation of a form of words invented by MacLaren this is patently and absurd generalistaion and quite impossible for MacLaren to have ever substantiated.

With hindsight the long skirts edict issued on the spur of the moment in South Africa in the summer of 1974 was a classic device, putting all women in SES worldwide into a position of deliberate embarrassment and separation from the 'outside' activities in their communities.

The equivalent situation for the men would have been if all and sundry including the St James male teachers had been ordered to wear morning coats ad top hats at all times.

But of course MacLaren would never have done that. The subtle bias and discrimination in the wording difference between men and women is typical of the barely concealed psychological abuse. No doubt much of the lady teachers' petty vindictiveness at St James came fro mthat treatment either at the hands of their SES tutors or husbands or both.

All the above by way of background. At the root of the difficulty St James perpetually runs into are the vague 'educational principles' laid down by MacLaren and which I set out in Section 2 of my 1996 report. You may recall that in that report I had asked the 3 head teachers to articulate their educational philosophy so as to get them really thinking about what was important from their practical experience as teachers. They were personally, without consultation with any governors, secretly forbidden by Lambie from undertaking such an exercise.

With no educational knowlege whatsoever and official locus to do so Lambie [MacLarens successor as SES leader] nevertheless felt in a position to assert that MacLaren's definition 20 years earlier was complete an sufficient. It plainly was not but the move ensured St James's permanent intellectual and spiritual dependence on the SES in the same way as Lambie's annual 'world tour' (of the UK's former colonies) seeks to maintain dependence on the London SES. The decision by Lambie to persuade Pincham to 'invite' selected colonial day-schools to affiliate with London's St James is in the same vein.

In all cases Lambie is careful to ensure these associations, whilst appearing to be official links, carry no legal ties so that liability for any local problem can be isolated whilst constant covert exertion of control and influence thrives behind the scenes.

The othe device is the use of apparently unconnected charities such as the Education Renaissance Trust controlled by the SES. This has been going for several years. Another one is the Jyoti Nidhidyasa Trust which is supposed to look after fundraising for the Shankaracharya's ashram. A more recent one is the Lucca Leadership Trust for young people, funded by teh head of th Sheffield SES and run entirely by attendees of the SES and scions of the senior SES families. This use of disparate bodies may multiply in future as a device for giving the appearance of independent but like-minded people.

Of course all of this is done with the best possible intentions and in the unspoken inner conviction that, because this is the only true teaching, almost any stratagem is justified for getting the message across to St James pupils and for ensuring permanent dependence on the London SES.

The secret connection and influence is an integral part of the concatenation between the two organisations. The engineered peer pressure exerted to join the Foundation Groups appears to be a strong as ever and requires taking a form of oath of allegiance based on the 'threefold bond' described in Section 2 of my report under b) 1, 2 and 3. Because it is not part of the curriculum it is not an area that comes within the schools inspectorate's remit.

I do not believe the leopard can change its spots or has any intention of doing so. It would be against all the SES beliefs and traditions of close covert control. Any recommendation you made in terms of 'Chinese walls', appointment of 'non-SES' governors or other mechanisms to ensure the St James really is Independent of SES are unlikely to be followed other than in outer form. Lambie, the Governors and teachers and administrators are too closely and intimately involved emotionally and financially with the SES for that independence to teh genuinely fostered. Tunnels under and spy-holes through the Chinese wall would be formed in a matter of days.

That's certainly an interesting read. I can see why it was suppressed when it was published, it's a shame that it wasn't used constructively.
It seems to me to be a painfully honest, realistic and very factual picture.
It brings to light issues of manipulation not only of the management of the school 'from above', but also the manipulation of SES members at the level of individuals, and the pressures on them. The implication is that the Ses had (have?) an enormous influence over the direction of their member's lives and decisions in relation to the school, not to mention paying the teachers according to their 'needs'? The potential for abuse here seems to be huge.

Well I see that Donald Lambie runs the SES is the same dictatorial manner that MacLaren does. It is also clear that the senior tutor of the SES is held in a revered like manner such that there can be no questioning his authority. It is worth noting that the Donald Lambie is neither a trustee of the School of Economic Science, or any of its affiliate organisations. As is pointed out, neither is he a Govenor of the day schools. Given this Lambie can not be held legally accountable for any of the decisions he makes. He is surrounded by puppets who will take the fall and the blame for any of the consequences.

Whilst none of what is in Marco's report is a surprise to me, it still makes hard blatant reading.

Throughout this whole period of coming to terms with my time at St James and the influence of the SES on my life, I sit here with the entirely unrealistic hope that there is some redeeming feature that makes it all alright or the hope that in some way the concerns we have about the organisations will somehow turn out to be unfounded or untrue.

St James and the SES is playing fast and loose with peoples lives for which there is no real accountability.

A big thankyou to Marco Goldschmied for having the courage to write the report in the first place, partaking in the inquiry, and now publishing these publicly.